Back
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
HARNAM SINGH, J.
Rajpal
Versus
Suraj Narain
`Second Appeal No. 736 of 1949
Decided On : 12-07-1950
RENT CONTROL - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1947 - RULES FRAMED UNDER S. 11 OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE, 1944 - APPLICABILITY - SECOND APPEAL - NO RIGHT OF SECOND APPEAL - REVISION - LIMITATION - S. 84, GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER - S. 11 OF THE ORDINANCE - VALIDITY - SUIT UNDER THE ACT - DETERMINATION BY COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE - R. 7 OF THE RULES FRAMED UNDER S. 11 OF THE ORDINANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of defendant from the premises, alleging non-payment of rent and subletting a part of the premises without plaintiff's consent. Defendant resisted the suit, pleading that the standard rent of the premises was lower than claimed by the plaintiff and that the sub-tenants had been in occupation with the consent of the plaintiff. The trial court found that the defendant was liable to be ejected for subletting a portion of the premises without the plaintiff's consent and that the standard rent was lower than claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was awarded a decree for arrears of rent at the standard rent and for eviction of the defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was governed by the rules framed under S. 11 of the Delhi Rent Control Ordinance, 1944, as the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1947, came into force after the institution of the suit and the rules framed under the Ordinance continued to be in force by virtue of S. 84 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court further held that there was no right of second appeal under the rules and that the revision petition was barred by limitation. The court also held that S. 11 of the Ordinance, which empowered the High Court to make rules of procedure, was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power as it was a case of conditional legislation. The court also held that the suit was within the purview of the Act as it involved claims for ejectment under S. 9(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and relief under S. 7 and the proviso to S. 9(1)(a) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the second appeal is competent? 2. Whether the revision is barred by time? 3. Whether S. 11 of the Ordinance is void for delegation of legislative power? 4. Whether the suit was within the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The rules framed under S. 11 of the Ordinance, which governed the proceedings, did not provide for a second appeal. 2. The revision petition was filed beyond the limitation period of 60 days prescribed under R. 9 of the rules. 3. S. 11 of the Ordinance was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power as it was a case of conditional legislation where the taking effect of the legislation was made to depend upon the determination of facts and conditions by an outside authority. 4. The suit involved claims for ejectment under S. 9(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and relief under S. 7 and the proviso to S. 9(1)(a) of the Act, and therefore, it was within the purview of the Act.
Final Decision: The second appeal and the revision petition were dismissed.
2. The facts, so far as material, are that on 29-11-1947, Shri Suraj Narain instituted the suit out of which these proceedings have arisen for the recovery of Rs. 500 on account of arrears of rent and for the ejectment of Shri Rajpal defendant from house No. 355, situate in Galli Lodhan, Kucha Pati Ram, Delhi, alleging nonpayment of rent and subletting a part of the premises by the defendant without plaintiffs consent. In the plaint plaintiff claims rent for the first three months at the agreed rate of Rs. 26-9-0 per mensem while for the remaining eight months, during which period the defendant remained in occupation of the premises after notice of ejectment, rent is claimed at Rs. 53-2-0 per mensem. Giving up a sum of Rs. 4-11-0 plaintiff claims Rs. 500 as arrears of rent and compensation and asks for the ejectment of the defendant from house No. 355.
3. Shri Rajpal defendant resisted the suit pleading inter alia that the standard rent of house No. 355 was Rs. 20-9-0 per mensem and that the plaintiff could not recover rent at Rs. 26-9-0 per mensem. The defendant maintained that the sub-tenants had been in a part of house No. 355 for a number of years with the consent of the plaintiff-landlord. Defendant then deposited in Court a sum of Rs. 405 on the first hearing of the suit on account of arrears of rent.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court fixed the following issues :
(1) Whether the grounds of ejectment pleaded by the plaintiff exist and the defendant is liable to be ejected ?
(2) What is the amount due to the plaintiffs by way of rent and damages ?
(3) What is the standard rent of the property in suit ?
(4) Whether a valid notice of ejectment was served on the defendant, and if not what is the effect ?
(5) Relief.
5. On the first issue the trial Court found that the defendant having deposited in Court on the first hearing of the case the amount due as arrears of rent and costs of the suit the ground of non-payment of rent did not avail the plaintiff. The trial Court then found that the defendant was liable to ejectment on the ground that he had sublet a portion of house No. 355 without the consent of the plaintiff-landlord. On issue 3 the trial Court found that the standard rent of house No. 355 was Rs. 20-14-0 per mensem and that being so, the plaintiff landlord could recover rent only at the rate of Rs. 20-14-0 per mensem. In deciding issue 2 the trial Court held that under Punjab Act XIX [19] of 1947 it was not permissible to the plaintiff-landlord to charge in excess of the standard rent either by way of rent or compensation, and that being so, the trial Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 229-10-0 at the rate of Rs. 20-14-0 per mensem on account of rent for the eleven months in suit. On issue 4 the trial Court found that Ex. P. 1 was valid notice of ejectment. On the findings set out above the trial Court decreed plaintiffs claim for Rs. 229-10-0 on account of arrears of rent and for the eviction of the defendant from house No. 355 with proportionate costs.
6. From the decree passed by the trial Court on 12-7-1948, Shri Rajpal defendant appealed in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi. The learned District Judge, however, by his order dated 1-10-1948, returned the appeal for presentation in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, on the finding that the appeal lay in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge.
7. Now, the Senior Subordinate Judge observing that no application for extension of time under S. 5, Limitation Act, 1908, has been made by the defendant-appellant has dismissed the appeal as being time barred.
8. Defendant now applies to this Court for the revision of the order passed by the District Judge on 1-10-1948, and maintains that the learned District Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in returning the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the Court of the S
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
